Prof. Siegel at Concurring Opinions argues that Roman Polanski should be brought to justice in the the U.S., but says Polanski only "seduced" his victim.
He was very justifiably called out in the blog entry's comments for not using the term rape. As of this writing, Prof. Siegel hasn't answered the comments nor corrected his wording.
Let's be clear: when Roman Polanski slipped a 13-year-old a mickey and then had oral, vaginal, and anal sex with her while she continued to say "no," he raped a child. He did not merely "seduc[e] a 13-year-old girl with alcohol and drugs and then [have] sex with her."
Are Prof. Siegel and other writers using some new definition of the word seduce that I haven't been aware of before this week? Seduce does not mean "dose with champagne and 'ludes until passed out." Seducing someone romantically means persuading them, over their initial objection, to consent to have sex with you. But you can't persuade someone who's been drugged to consent with you, and a 13-year-old is presumed incapable of consent. This is rape law 101.
As for the filmmakers supporting him -- Woody Allen? Is Woody Allen really the best choice to be the John Hancock on a "Free Roman Polanski" petition? Do these supporters have children? Would they give someone a free pass to rape one of their children so long as the rapist was a respected auteur? Which auteurs would they give that pass to -- is there a minimum number of Oscars or Golden Bears or Palmes d'Or an auteur would have to win first?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment